175. Author Steve Volk on Skeptical Arguments Designed to Mislead (Podcast)

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by Hjortron

But the methodologies that are in place when doing psychology, neuroscience and philosophy would not necessarily change at all, just how we interpreted the results we find.

Sciences like, say, inorganic chemistry or aerodynamic engineering wouldn't be affected at all. So some sciences would have to go through a revolution, while others wouldn't be affected.

I agree......................

[mszlazak]

Originally Posted by Hjortron

But the methodologies that are in place when doing psychology, neuroscience and philosophy would not necessarily change at all, just how we interpreted the results we find.

Sciences like, say, inorganic chemistry or aerodynamic engineering wouldn't be affected at all. So some sciences would have to go through a revolution, while others wouldn't be affected.

Don't agree since you are assuming some linearity of impact is associated with these different fields of study. Nonlinear phenomena occur in probably all of them but seem subtle to non-existent in some that they are ignored. Once understanding happens then something subtle can have huge impact. Cold fusion maybe an upcoming example.

[Michael Larkin]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

You could be right, but I sense that at some point, the media at large will grab this story and turn on the scientists, who won't have a leg to stand on. I was amazed the other day, I went to pay a bill at the garage, and I got chatting to the semi-retired guy who does the books for them. Somehow climate change got mentioned, and he knew the whole story, and we laughed at how chasing a trend of tenths of a degree per decade in extremely noisy data, collected with thermometers that are mostly not even calibrated to that level of accuracy, would be considered utterly stupid, even in a school physics lesson.

Maybe I am being optimistic, but I think the media and the politicians are going to want someone to blame - and soon!
David

They've all just been at Rio with hardly a mention of climate change--they've switched to biodiversity and sustainability because they know "climate change" is dead in the water. Nothing has essentially altered: they still have the same political aims, but are trying to find something else to frighten folk with. They're still pushing for windmills and CCS even though it's untried and potentially dangerous technology.

The bandwagon rolls on, even though it's all become a farce, even for blokes down the local pub or garage. Nobody is standing up and calling out the emperor, because they're all too embarrassed, all too tainted. That includes the media, I'd say. If it dies, I fear it will be with a whimper rather than a bang, and that we will not learn from it.

Paranormal phenomena are an inherently important facet of existence, ultimately more than controversial areas like climate change, AIDs, GMOs, cold fusion, and so on. Proof of the existence of mind outside the body, and especially its continuance after death, would have staggering implications.

I mean, think about it. If it was demonstrably proven, it would radically alter human aims and perspectives even amongst hard-nosed sceptics. It would be a whole different world. I think this is why, at bottom, it is resisted so resolutely.

And precisely because it would be so momentous, it does perhaps need to be incontrovertibly demonstrated to be true. It may seem to have already been--to many on this forum--but like it said in the interview, for many, it's too good to be true. And for others, it wouldn't seem good, but rather frightening or threatening. I mean, in the face of knowledge that we are immortal, spiritual beings, of what great significance are our ordinary concerns as they are currently understood?

The obvious corollary of an acceptance of such a thing is that primary focus on the attainment of earthly pleasure, fame, wealth and power would disappear. As it did for so many great spiritual figures--Jesus and the Buddha, the saints and ascetics of all the major religions. My gosh, what would we do? How would we all live? How would it be to live without our daily ration of things to fear and/or hate? What would we replace our erstwhile hopes and aims with? Would we still want to increase our scientific knowledge? Would it be bone-crushingly boring?

I don't believe so myself--I think it would enhance and enrich human existence. We'd all still have to do ordinary things like earning a living; there'd still have to be organised societal groupings, and so on. Let's not forget that even if it were demonstrated to be true, not everyone would have personally experienced their own spiritual nature. And when they do, I think that curiosity about life and "ordinary" things, as well as ordinary enjoyments, increase. People are here, they would know it's for a purpose, and that that purpose is important. They would throw themselves into making the most of it in a healthy way. Many great painters, poets, composers, scientists, etc. have and had a sense of the spiritual and little concern for material aims, even if they ended up materially quite comfortable. And many superficially quite ordinary people have found joy and peace in life in the midst of trying circumstances.

Ah well, I'm a believer and to some small extent an experiencer. I would say all that, wouldn't I? Doesn't make it any the less true, though.

[Hjortron]

Originally Posted by mszlazak

Don't agree since you are assuming some linearity of impact is associated with these different fields of study. Nonlinear phenomena occur in probably all of them but seem subtle to non-existent in some that they are ignored. Once understanding happens then something subtle can have huge impact. Cold fusion maybe an upcoming example.

I don't quite get what you're trying to say. Would you mind expanding on that thought a bit?

[mszlazak]

Originally Posted by Hjortron

I don't quite get what you're trying to say. Would you mind expanding on that thought a bit?

Haven't we heard these "it's the end of physics or science" type things before which have all been wrong? Some anomaly was considered of minor consequence which later changed the entire field (e.g, relativity and quantum theory). I suspect a very similar thing will happen with psi and one consequence will be that physics won't be considered fundamental anymore.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Michael Larkin

Paranormal phenomena are an inherently important facet of existence, ultimately more than controversial areas like climate change, AIDs, GMOs, cold fusion, and so on. Proof of the existence of mind outside the body, and especially its continuance after death, would have staggering implications.

We don't disagree at all about climate change - it is just that I like to be optimistic!

I think it is best not to lump too many things together, because all these issues are so distinct, and it is very hard to have confidence one way or the other about some of them. I once tried to start a thread discussing the obvious parallels between the climate change scandal and the reaction of science to things paranormal - ultimately it didn't work, because most people here hadn't followed this issue at all, and some genuinely assumed the science must be real. Discussing materialism, ESP, etc. on a climate change website would be even more disastrous!

The scale of the climate change scandal is quite awful - I mean the UK and Germany might end up with power cuts in the winter, and money donated to poor countries has been wasted on expensive ineffective power generation. Meanwhile, the rain forests continue to be destroyed. All this because scientific institutions couldn't resist a cash cow!

David

[Michael Larkin]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

We don't disagree at all about climate change - it is just that I like to be optimistic!

I think it is best not to lump too many things together, because all these issues are so distinct, and it is very hard to have confidence one way or the other about some of them. I once tried to start a thread discussing the obvious parallels between the climate change scandal and the reaction of science to things paranormal - ultimately it didn't work, because most people here hadn't followed this issue at all, and some genuinely assumed the science must be real. Discussing materialism, ESP, etc. on a climate change website would be even more disastrous!

The scale of the climate change scandal is quite awful - I mean the UK and Germany might end up with power cuts in the winter, and money donated to poor countries has been wasted on expensive ineffective power generation. Meanwhile, the rain forests continue to be destroyed. All this because scientific institutions couldn't resist a cash cow!

David

I know we agree on climate change, David, and I very much hope your optimism proves to be correct. Nothing would delight me more!

It's a pity that people don't connect the dots between scientific controversies in different areas, because if they did, they'd see that the area that particularly engages them is part of a consistent pattern. People's first instinct in any unfamiliar area is to trust the science, and that's understandable, largely because they see all this tech stuff that actually works and is marvellous, and don't see that our engineering skills are a heck of a sight more pragmatic and unbiased than is the way we practise science. Engineering has to work--no one would buy an iphone that didn't do its job.

But a great deal of science doesn't really work. It's quite often little more than the speculative ideas that scientists choose to focus on, and woe betide any scientist who wants to rock the boat with contrarian views. A lot of it has to do with the way that science is funded, and the way that the system favours gatekeepers with vested interests. Eisenhower warned against this in his farewell address.

I'd say that in the area of the paranormal, researchers may have it rather less hard than scientists holding contrarian views in other areas. They have actually managed to get it accepted that NDEs are a real phenomenon, for example, and the orthodox are having to expend some energy in trying to explain them away. In other areas, the contrarians can't get a look in. Like I say, I won't go into details in different areas because it's O/T, but I do want to plant the idea that what's happening in paranormal research is far from unique.

Science generally has become overly political and quasi-religious, tending to marginalise the kind of contrarians that have always in the past led to the Kuhnian revolutions that we need to have to make progress. Contrarians aren't always right, of course, but the system needs to allow for them to have their say, and to engage with them in an open and professional manner.

When I listen to something like the latest podcast, I have in mind the bigger picture. In places, with very little change in wording, we could be talking about a dozen parallel situations. In our case, we are seeing metaphysical materialism as the primary driving force of opposition to much compelling evidence.

But metaphysics pervades all sorts of other areas. Despite scientists seeing themselves as objectivists, unbiased observers, analysers and reporters of fact, the system often encourages them to become knights on a crusade for truth; but they may be wearing blinkers, unable to distinguish between metaphysical conviction and truth. They are such very poor philosophers; not surprising since scientific training at universities largely eschews the study of philosophy. Hence they are not trained to be as introspective and critical-minded as they perhaps should be. There are exceptions, of course--people such as Einstein, or Sheldrake for that matter; exceptions who are quite likely to be contrarians, as it happens.

[Lyander]

If Volk's book Fringe.ology is anything to go by, he occupies the agnostic ground. He stated that believers and non-believers take what they want from the data to buttress their worldviews. However, he believes that we are not yet at any stage to dismiss one or the other.

Of course, I got the distinct feeling, and this interview confirmed it, that he leans heavily toward the believers.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Devlin Adventis O'Katie

Or at least, heavily against skeptics.

I think anyone who explores the subject, tends to lean that way. Alex began fairly open-minded, but when you find deliberate distortion of the facts, worthy of a politician, it is natural to lean the other way. It is worth listening to some of the early podcasts where Alex tried to get to the bottom of various 'debunking' exercises - e.g. several interviews with Sheldrake and Wiseman.

David

[Steve Volk]

Well, this is complicated.

I don't think we have enough data in for either side to claim victory. And I still believe the skeptics could be "right", that there is some explanation for all the paranormal phenomena routinely claimed that defeats mysticism. The thing is, they are clearly not there, yet they behave as if they are, and this irritates me to no end.

So, am I hard on skeptics? You bet. And the main reason why is that, parapsychologists aside, most of the believers I meet are basing their opinion off of personal experiences that they have had themselves or have been claimed by people they trust, who are close to them. They aren't claiming to proceed by any kind of scientific method and don't claim any rigorous knowledge of the workings of science. Skeptics, routinely, do. They set themselves up in a very particular context as gatekeepers for mainstream science, who can educate the masses on critical thinking and the rules and findings of science. But when you look at many of their activities they behave in a wildly deceptive and unscientific manner.

Wiseman's incredibly short time limit on Ben replications is a very telling case in point. He positions himself as the authority, the guy who will collect data and studies from other people to determine if Bem's findings on precognition were accurate. Surely, Wiseman's education does qualify him for such an undertaking. But is he any more qualified than Bem? No, but he secures the mantle of leadership for himself. Then he announces the tiny window in which he will accept replication attempts, never mind that it might take twice that long even to secure funding for such an experiment.

To my own mind, there is absolutely no possible justification for limiting his consideration only to studies done over the following six months or even a year. What? He'll be too busy in a year, or two? If that's the case he shouldn't undertake the project at all. My guess is that he created such a short window so the skeptics could be done with Bem as quickly as possible. I mean, if he actually conducted responsible science, mindful of the challenges involved, the idea of precognition might actually hold some credibility for a while. And of course, from a skeptical mindset, we cannot possibly have that because... why? The whole world will come crashing down around our ears?

I am particularly tough on skeptics, and perhaps moreso than believers, for the simple reason that they have it coming. They talk about how believers are infected by superstition and magical thinking and yet they are guilty of both. They believe they have explained things away when they clearly haven't—the NDE is a case in point—and they seem to believe that any explanation of paranormal claims that yields positive results is somehow destructive and needs to be stamped out, as quickly as possible. They seem to be superstitious of superstition.

I am tough on them for the same reason that so many people object to organized religion: simple hypocrisy.

Now, all this said, there are times I find believers far too certain. Let's set dogmatic religion aside in this conversation because they are so clearly too certain of their beliefs that I am not going to bother to march through a discussion on that. Instead, I'll ask a very Skeptiko sort of question: Has the materialist paradigm been defeated or do we have enough data to claim it is? Not to me. Not yet. I have enough faith in scientists to believe that if we had that kind of data we'd find more scientists flocking over to this side. I do believe, however, that there are mountains of data strongly suggesting that either a.) the materialist paradigm is incomplete, or b.) material can operate in ways that validate mysticism.

In any event, I believe we need more science on the subject, not less. This might conflict with Alex, who says "it's not about the data." Funnily enough, I agree with him there but only to a point. I think that's true for a lot of people, like Wiseman. And it's true enough that it holds us back, at times, from accepting new findings for 10, 20, 40, or 100 years. But I also believe that more and better data will generate more momentum and I do think we should set about getting it.

I find radio and podcast interviews more challenging than writing. These are nuanced issues and I'm still getting better at presenting my ideas verbally. I haven't listened back to the interview, but I know toward the end I suggested the issues we're discussing here are so big—death, what it means to be human—that they might make a lot of well-meaning people operate in strange ways. I'm paraphrasing here, but sometimes the "deception" skeptics engage in might start with self-deceit, to the point that by the time they make some public pronouncement—false as it might be—they are really certain, inside, that it's true.

This was territory I worked really hard to mine in Fringe-ology—that, at bottom, all of us, believers and skeptics, are very much alike in how we form and defend our worldviews. I just tend to stress that skeptics need to be more willing to put themselves under the same microscope they are so eager to use on believers.